Submitted by Late_Following8526 t3_11ejce9 in personalfinance

Can someone please help me understand something?

I'm trying to invest the money I have in my Roth IRA. The investment wiki on here advices for brand new investors to invest in target retirement funds as a safe option, and after you learn more can make your own three-fund portfolio (to save money on fees) with your "age in bonds". They sound comparable with target funds being a safer option if you don't know what you're doing, but I'm confused because the Vanguard Target Funds have *way* less than your age in bonds. So, they seem riskier.

Edit: Thank you for your replies, everyone! I so appreciate the effort helping out a stranger.

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DeluxeXL t1_jaei7m2 wrote

You confused risk and volatility.

Total stocks index is volatile - it has high standard deviation among prices and also among returns. However, it is not risky when the appropriate time frame is followed. Pre-retirement and retirement span multiple decades, where total stocks index is suitable.

21

PetraLoseIt t1_jaeirh1 wrote

Very important to understand the difference between volatile and risky

4

nothlit t1_jaecnha wrote

Age in bonds is a relatively conservative approach and one that many people consider to be outdated. Most target date funds from Vanguard, Schwab, and Fidelity have about 10-15% bonds until you reach about 20-25 years away from the target date, then they start down a glide path arriving at around 60-70% bonds by the time you reach the target date or a little after.

14

buildyourown t1_jaedupi wrote

Then just fudge the date and pick one 10 yrs out. It's your risk tolerance

8

Celodurismo t1_jaeep1i wrote

>Vanguard Target Funds have *way* less than your age in bonds

Cause "your age in bonds" is a way to simplify it for people doing it themselves.

Target funds will not increase their bond allocation so linearly. You're young, you don't want your funds tied up in bonds. Hell, many people recommend identifying the correct target date fund for your retirement, and then adding another 10 years to it to keep it from overallocating bonds too quickly.

4

Mysunsai t1_jaecy86 wrote

> They sound comparable with target funds being a safer option

“Easier”

Nobody said anything about safer.

> I’m confused because the Vanguard Target Funds have way less than your age in bonds.

Age in bonds is also the “easier” explanation, it’s something that someone without any knowledge of modern portfolio theory can probably manage to do. That doesn’t mean it is actually what modern portfolio theory says to do… just close enough that you’ll manage ok. It was the general recommendation before target date funds allowed everyone to easily access actual modern portfolio theory allocations.

You can still do whatever you want, of course, but if you don’t want to follow MPT precisely then target date funds are not for you.

3

kylejack t1_jaef9mc wrote

Age in bonds is an old-fashioned rule, though it may be coming back into fashion if these interest rates keep climbing and level off.

3

retroPencil t1_jaeczc8 wrote

Investing is an exercise in understanding one's own risk tolerance. If you feel like target date funds are too risky for your situation. You should not feel pressured to use it.

Safe can be defined from a few different perspectives.

  • safe can mean low losses

  • safe can mean low chance to get into investing the wrong things due to lack of will, skill, time.

1

DaMan619 t1_jaeg9f1 wrote

Your age in bonds is from the before era in long long ago when interest rates were higher. Its 120-age in bonds now.

1

usefully_useless t1_jaekznc wrote

I’m pretty sure you meant to say 120-age in stocks, or age-20 in bonds.

1